Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Yes, we could start by confiscating all motorcycles over 100cc, and make sure no one is allowed to have anything bigger than a moped.
That has not been my experience. What HAS been my experience is that the more you pay employees, the more time they take off from work, since they have a little extra money.
It then becomes necessary to hire more people just to fill the gaps when someone isn't there, which makes prices go up. I doubt there's a business owner anywhere who hasn't experienced employees that lose their motivation as salary goes up. Professional athletes, anyone?
However, I've always supported a merit or production/sales-based pay plan. In other words, the "If you (the employee) make more, I make more" philosophy is the best of all.
Agreed. First of all, if voting to raise everyone's wages was going to solve poverty, every country would have done it by now. How can anyone be naive enough to think that the cause of poverty is that every government hasn't required wages high enough to stamp it out?
You need look no further than the airlines. The unions make such outrageous demands that eventually, most major airlines bankrupt. Then all the retired employees see their pensions disappear, or at the very least, become significantly smaller.
You can't legislate prosperity.
|
Your argument doesn't even make sense.
Granting your experience is representative of the population wage earners, and it certainly hasn't meshed with my experience, how would costs increase if you are merely hiring someone to fill a spot someone else left?
Your argument was that people are paid more, then they take time off.
You have to hire someone to fill in that time.
Costs rise.
This argument is bogus.
If you hire someone to fill someone else's timeslot, then your costs remain the same because you simply use the money you would have paid the person who was supposed to be working to pay the wages of the fill-in. Even better, most places I've had experience with pay their part-time workers a lower wage than their full-time workers (and don't give them benefits). So if anything happens other than costs remaining stable, the alternative would be that your overhead actually decreases when the full-time worker goes home and the part-time worker steps in for one or two days per week.